tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55833558997395222832024-02-07T14:31:28.855-05:00Defend Rights Now<b><i>Advancing Man's Inalienable Right to His Own Life</i></b>Psychmstrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03087940311060157473noreply@blogger.comBlogger212125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-27900867259382317082016-11-22T05:16:00.000-05:002016-11-22T05:17:16.184-05:00what do you think about all that stuff?Hi,
<br>Please take a look at all that stuff and tell me what you think about it, the info is here <<a href="http://bit.pattyadair.com/lnsua/264">http://bit.pattyadair.com/lnsua/264</a>>
<br>
<br>
<br>Yours sincerely, leathergearPsychmstrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12425752142057152116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-67315259263054329482016-07-09T20:36:00.001-04:002016-07-09T20:36:23.051-04:00try it<div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Hi,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Have you ever tried that stuff before? It's something gorgeous, just take a look <a href="http://shohulira.infinityem.com/lnnkdh">http://shohulira.infinityem.com/lnnkdh</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>leathergear@yahoo.com<o:p></o:p></span></p></div>Psychmstrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12425752142057152116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-35685024351034893992014-03-02T10:15:00.001-05:002014-03-14T19:42:57.855-04:00Political “Left” and “Right” Properly Defined<h2>
</h2>
<h2>
</h2>
<div class="byline">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">Posted by <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/author/cbiddle/" title="Posts by Craig Biddle">Craig Biddle</a> at 4:07 pm ET</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">I’m often asked versions of the following: Given that the political
right is so corrupted by conservatives who seek to limit liberty in
countless ways, wouldn’t it be better to abandon the language of “left”
vs. “right” and adopt new terminology?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">My answer is that, because the terms “left” and “right” are already
widely used to denote the basic political alternative, and because that
alternative is in fact binary, the best approach for advocates of
freedom is not to reject the prevalent terminology but to clarify it—by
defining the relevant terms.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/Political-Spectrum-Essentialized6.jpg"><img alt="" class="alignnone size-large wp-image-4420" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/Political-Spectrum-Essentialized6-1024x441.jpg" height="174" title="Political Spectrum Essentialized" width="405" /></a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">The problem with conventional approaches to the left-right political
spectrum is that they either fail to define the alternatives in
question, or proceed to define them in terms of non-essentials.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">One common approach, for instance, fails to specify the precise
nature of either side, yet proceeds to place communism, socialism, and
modern “liberalism” on (or toward) the left—and fascism, conservatism,
and capitalism on (or toward) the right.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">This makes no sense, at least in terms of the right. <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-winter/capitalism-moral-high-ground.asp" target="_blank">Capitalism</a>—the
social system of individual rights, property rights, and personal
liberty—has nothing in common with conservatism or fascism. Take them in
turn.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">Conservatism is not for individual rights or personal liberty;
rather, it is for religious values (euphemistically called “traditional
values” or “family values”) and a government that enforces them.
Although conservatism calls for some economic liberties, it
simultaneously demands various violations of individual rights in order
to support certain aspects of the welfare state (e.g., Social Security
and government-run schools), in order to shackle or control “greedy”
businessmen (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley and anti-immigration laws), and in
order to forbid certain “immoral” acts or relationships (e.g., drug use
and gay marriage). Thus, conservatism is utterly at odds with
capitalism.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">And fascism, far from having anything in common with capitalism, is
essentially the same atrocity as communism and socialism—the only
difference being that whereas communism and socialism openly call for
state ownership of all property, fascism holds that some property may be
“private”—so long as government can dictate how such property may be
used. Sure, you own the factory, but here’s what you may and may not
produce in it; here’s the minimum wage you must pay employees; here’s
the kind of accounting system you must use; here are the specifications
your machinery must meet; and so on. (Thomas Sowell makes some good <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/12/socialist_or_fascist" target="_blank">observations</a> about the nature of fascism.)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">Another ill-conceived approach to the left-right political spectrum
is the attempt by some to define the political alternatives by reference
to the size or percentage of government. In this view, the far left
consists of full-sized or 100 percent government; the far right consists
of zero government or anarchy; and the middle area subsumes the various
other possible sizes of government, from “big” to “medium” to “small”
to “minimal.” But this too is hopeless.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">The size of government is not the essential issue in politics. A
large military may be necessary to defend citizens from foreign
aggressors, especially if there are many potential aggressors—say,
multiple communist or Islamist regimes—who might combine forces against a
free country. Likewise, a large court system might be necessary to deal
with the countless contracts involved in a large free market and with
the various disputes that can arise therein.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">A small government, by contrast, can <i>violate</i> rights in
myriad ways—if its proper purpose is not established and maintained.
Observe that governments in the antebellum South were relatively small,
yet their laws permitted and enforced the enslavement of men, women, and
children. Likewise, the U.S. government was quite small during the
1890s—even though the Sherman Antitrust Act had passed and was violating
businessmen’s rights to liberty, property, and the pursuit of
happiness.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">The essential issue in politics is not the size but the <i>function</i> of government; it’s not whether government is big or small but whether it protects or violates rights. (Ari Armstrong <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/mises-on-government-size-doesnt-matter/" target="_blank">addresses</a> this issue with excerpts from Ludwig von Mises.)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">The proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights by
banning the use of physical force from social relationships and by using
force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. A
properly conceived political spectrum must reflect this fact. Whatever
terms are used to identify the positions of political ideologies or
systems must be defined with regard to the fundamental political
alternative: force vs. freedom—or, more specifically, rights-protecting
vs. rights-violating institutions.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">Because the term “left” is already widely used to denote social
systems and ideologies of force (e.g., socialism, communism,
“progressivism”), and the term “right” is substantially used to denote
social systems and ideologies of freedom (e.g., capitalism, classical
liberalism, constitutional republicanism), the best approach for
advocates of freedom is not to develop new terminology for the political
spectrum, but to define the existing terminology with respect to
political essentials—and to claim the extreme right end of the spectrum
as rightfully and exclusively <i>ours</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">A notable advantage of embracing the political right as our own is
that the term “right” happens to integrate seamlessly with the
philosophical and conceptual hierarchy that supports freedom. This is a
historic accident, but a welcome one. Although “left” and “right”
originally referred to seating arrangements of 18th-century legislators
in France—arrangements unrelated to anything in contemporary American
politics—the term “right” conceptually relates to fundamental moral
truths on which freedom depends.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">Capitalism—the social system of the political <i>right</i>—is the system of individual <i>rights</i>.
It is the system that respects and protects individual rights—by
banning physical force from social relationships—and thus enables people
to live their lives, to act on their judgment, to keep and use their
property, and to pursue personal happiness. This observation grounds the
political right in the proper goal of politics: the <i>protection</i> of rights.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">Related, and still more fundamental, capitalism is morally <i>right</i>. By protecting individual rights, capitalism legalizes <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451163931/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=theobjestan-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0451163931" target="_blank">rational egoism</a>:
It enables people to act on the truth that each individual is morally
an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others, and that each
individual should act to sustain and further his own life and happiness
by means of his own rational judgment. This observation deepens the
significance of the term “right” and anchors it in the only code of
morality that is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0971373701/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=theobjestan-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0971373701" target="_blank">demonstrably true</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">In short, seen in this light, the <i>right</i> morality gives rise to the principle of individual <i>rights</i>, which gives rise to the need of a political system that <i>protects</i> rights, which system is properly placed on the political right—in opposition to all systems that in any way violate rights.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">Observe the clarity gained by this conception of the political
spectrum. The far left comprises the pure forms of all the
rights-violating social systems: communism, socialism, fascism,
Islamism, theocracy, democracy (i.e., rule by the majority), and
anarchism (i.e., rule by gangs). The far right comprises the pure forms
of rights-respecting social systems: laissez-faire capitalism, classical
liberalism, constitutional republicanism—all of which require
essentially the same thing: a government that protects and does not
violate rights. The middle area consists of all the compromised, mixed,
mongrel systems advocated by modern “liberals,” conservatives,
unprincipled Tea Partiers (as opposed to the good ones), and all those
who want government to protect some rights while violating other
rights—whether by forcing people to fund other people’s health care,
education, retirement, or the like—or by forcing people to comply with
religious or traditional mores regarding sex, marriage, drugs, or what
have you.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">Importantly, on this essentialized conception of the political
spectrum, the right does not entail degrees; only the left does. This is
because degrees of force are degrees of <i>force</i>; violations of rights are <i>violations</i>
of rights. Freedom and rights are absolutes: Either people are free to
act on their judgment, to keep and use their property, to pursue their
happiness—or they are not free; they are to some extent coerced. Either
government protects and does not violate rights—or it violates rights to
some extent.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">If people are not <i>fully</i>
free to run their businesses and voluntarily contract with others as
they see fit, to engage in voluntary adult romantic relationships, to
engage in their own preferred recreational activities, to purchase or
forgo health insurance as they deem best, and so forth, then they are
not free; they are victims of coercion.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">We who advocate freedom—whether we call ourselves <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/ayn-rand/objectivism.asp" target="_blank">Objectivists</a>
or laissez-faire capitalists or classical liberals or Tea Partiers or
whatever—should claim the political right as our own. And we should let
conservatives who advocate any kind or degree of rights violations know
that their proper place on the political spectrum is somewhere in the
mushy, unprincipled middle with their modern “liberal” brethren. Perhaps
such notice and company will cause them to think about what’s right.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">The political right properly belongs to those who uphold the <i>principle</i> of rights—not merely in theory, but also in practice.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/">Political “Left” and “Right” Properly Defined</a></span>Psychmstrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03087940311060157473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-1181272946547864372013-11-24T13:27:00.001-05:002014-03-14T19:44:51.573-04:00Is it "preposterous" to regard Mr. Obama as a socialist?<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: times new roman,serif; font-size: large;">
In my 2008 post I was responding to specific words uttered by Mr. Obama. I am not claiming that Mr. Obama wants to "nationalize" anything, at this point, except health care. He is on record for favoring a single-payer system, and that is, effectively socialism, is it not? Jumping to the present, the Affordable Care Act is a form of economic fascism, as practiced by Mussolini and Hitler. Private citizens are permitted to own enterprises, but they are effectively controlled by the government. That is the very definition of fascism, or "crony capitalism." It's form may be capitalistic, but the government actually controls the property.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>The very definition of property rights is not precisely an ownership title to a piece of property; on the contrary, property rights refers to use and control. If one doesn't have full use and control, then it matters little whether he technically "owns" anything at all.<br />
<br />
Consequently, I just don't see how any knowledgeable observer could not, at minimum, consider Mr. Obama a collectivist. Whether he favors fascism over socialism is a trivial issue. The point Mr. Obama seeks to establish is government control of citizens. That he is not succeeding as fast or as thoroughly as he would like does not diminish his general goal. <br />
<br />
There are, naturally, many different ways a committed collectivist can seek to control citizens. I'd invite you to consider exactly how a committed collectivist would further his political agenda in a country such as the United States of America. Certainly he might simply seek to extend further the collectivist elements that the public has already accepted, more or less. The public generally accepts a socialized education sector, for example. Granted, private education is still tolerated, at the margins, but either by funding schools and universities themselves, or simply by seeking to regulate and control private educational institutions, the government now runs education, for all intents and purposes.<br />
<br />
Similarly for the banks, if they are large enough. Mr. Obama needs money and what better way to secure funding than by threatening private companies and individuals with further regulation and control? Mr. Obama, most Democrats, and a great many Republicans are already quite adept representing such strategic incursions into the private sphere of the people as nothing more than wholesome attempts to promote the welfare of the poor, and those incursions have only grown over the decades as the people become worn down by the constant drumbeat for further government intervention. <br />
<br />
Of course, the effort by collectivists has been tremendously aided by the willingness of religion to condemn the right of the individual to live his life for his own sake, and not for the sake of others, as his primary moral imperative. Thus conservatism fails to offer the people a moral vision to rival that of the Left, since, quite clearly, conservatives share the same moral imperatives: that the purpose of government is to intervene into the lives of people to make their behavior conform to how the government sees the public interest. <br />
<br />
Conservatives may want lower taxes, and say they want a smaller government, yet they are frequently in favor of passing laws that violate the rights of citizens to control their own lives, such as the concerted attempt to curtail a woman's right to control her own body, or prevent marriage of homosexuals, or favor exemption from taxes of church property, etc. We all know what Liberals want, so I won't elaborate, but suffice it to say that Liberals generally want to increase taxes, extend regulation, and establish control over individual behavior, whether how much soda you can drink or what health insurance plan you can buy. Liberals even insist that people should be coerced into buying products they do not want and cannot afford.<br />
<br />
Mr. Obama was elected, and re-elected, because people saw that he espoused a clear moral vision, and his opponents, both in 2008 and 2012 offered no alternative. They were, and are, the modern equivalent of Barry Goldwater's "dime-store Republicans", i.e. Republicans who shared the willingness of FDR's coalition of Democrats who radically expanded government action and control in the so-called "New Deal." It is usually the case that the candidate who presents the clearest moral vision of what he wants to do wins the electorate.<br />
<br clear="all" /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,serif;">Tom Anderson</span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><br /> <span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span></span> <br />
<div align="center" style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<div align="left" style="border-color: windowtext; border-style: solid; border-width: 1pt; padding: 1pt;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"> Electronic Mail Confidentiality Notice:<br /><br />This electronic mail message and all attachments may contain confidential information belonging to the sender or the intended recipient. This information is intended ONLY for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution (electronic or otherwise), forwarding or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone, facsimile, or email to arrange for the return of the electronic mail, attachments, or documents.<br /> </span><span style="font-size: xx-small;"></span></div>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span>
<div align="left" style="border-color: windowtext; border-style: solid; border-width: 1pt; padding: 1pt;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="color: black;">This is a private electronic mail message and is thus covered by Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, Sec. 1030 USC, Section 107. Any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational or critical purposes only. Video, picture and/or audio contents of this post originated from the Internet and are assumed to be public domain, unless otherwise posted. <br /> </span></span></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: times new roman,serif; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /> </span></span><br />
<div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Tom Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026745794884067880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-6671420673643603222012-11-30T18:32:00.001-05:002012-11-30T18:32:27.844-05:00Leno: 'Very Dangerous to White House If Journalists Suddenly Start Asking Real Questions' | NewsBusters.org<a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/11/30/leno-very-dangerous-white-house-if-journalists-should-suddenly-start#ixzz2Di8QB1t6">Leno: 'Very Dangerous to White House If Journalists Suddenly Start Asking Real Questions' | NewsBusters.org</a>Psychmstrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03087940311060157473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-63786184083004502082012-06-03T11:48:00.000-04:002014-03-14T19:45:50.950-04:00Obama Gets Left Behind - Forbes<div style="font-family: times new roman,serif;">
<span style="font-size: medium;">Come on now. Is Obama <i>really</i> a "psychopathic megalomaniac"?</span></div>
<div style="font-family: times new roman,serif;">
<span style="font-size: medium;">I learned of Obama's problems today. Not from Ron Paul supporters. Not from <a href="http://www.forbes.com/profile/glenn-beck/">Glenn Beck</a>'s Drudge wanna-be news site <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/">The Blaze</a>. I read about Obama's psychosis from left wing Democrats.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: times new roman,serif;">
<span style="font-size: medium;">Everyday I get emails from former members of <a href="http://front.moveon.org/">Move On</a>, a pro-Democratic Party group that was famously active during the build-up to the Iraq War in 2003. They're complaining about one man: President Obama.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: times new roman,serif;">
<span style="font-size: medium;">In these emails, one thing is apparent. When it comes to the left wing liberals, Obama is being left behind.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: times new roman,serif;">
<span style="font-size: medium;">The left was mostly raptured into political heaven four years ago when they elected Obama on bended knee. He spoke about things dear to their hearts: closing Guantanamo Bay. Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Getting tough on bankers.<br /><a href="http://blogs-images.forbes.com/kenrapoza/files/2012/06/102092011fuhgeddaboudit.jpg"><span class="position_anchor"></span><img alt="" class="alignright size-thumbnail wp-image-9072 dimensions_initialized" src="http://blogs-images.forbes.com/kenrapoza/files/2012/06/102092011fuhgeddaboudit-150x150.jpg" height="150" style="position: relative;" width="150" /></a></span> </div>
<div style="font-family: times new roman,serif;">
<span style="font-size: medium;">Guantanamo is still open. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down, but the military presence remains. (Smacks of imperialism. That's something the left hates as much as libertarians do.) Then there's the president's bit about getting tough on bankers. Where has the White House come down hard on <a href="http://www.forbes.com/wall-street/">Wall Street</a>? <i>Fuhgeddaboudit. This is <a href="http://www.forbes.com/places/ny/new-york/">New York</a>!</i></span></div>
<div style="font-family: times new roman,serif;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span></div>
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: medium;">One anti-Obama Saturday in my inbox:</span><br />
<div style="font-family: times new roman,serif;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Re: Write-in Kermit the Frog!</b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="position_anchor" style="font-family: times new roman,serif;"></span></span><br />
<blockquote class="dimensions_initialized" style="font-family: times new roman,serif;">
<span style="font-size: medium;">If being a 'pragmatist' or a 'realist' means choosing only amongst evils, count us OUT. Obama betrayed the American voters who expected he would not gut the US Constitution. Both parties are the same. And, in a world of infinite possibilities we choose not between the lesser of two evils. In fact, those of us who are not into denial and work at the human rights front lines prefer to face the Republican snake head-on then the confused and gutless Democrat chameleon whining about being a progressive when they are NOT." — <a href="http://www.margueritelaurent.com/bio.html">Ezili Danto</a>, human rights lawyer at the Haitian Lawyers <a href="http://www.forbes.com/leadership/">Leadership</a> Network</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: times new roman,serif;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Re: Obama is a psychopath; reminds me of Stalin</b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="position_anchor" style="font-family: times new roman,serif;"></span></span><br />
<blockquote class="dimensions_initialized" style="font-family: times new roman,serif;">
<span style="font-size: medium;">There's a cancer in the presidency called <a href="http://www.forbes.com/profile/barack-obama/">Barack Obama</a>. We have a psychopathic megalomaniac occupying the White house who could be compared to Nero, Caligula, Stalin, or Pol Pot in his disdain for human life. He and his coven of other like minded DC psychopaths and sociopaths are on a murdering spree and like a third world dictator Obama can have someone and their family (including you) executed or blasted to smithereens with a thumbs up or down. This is sickening to me. They are so blase about murdering that they refer to the hit list photos as "baseball cards". Killing is a game or a sport to them. There is a "cancer on the Presidency" and that cancer has metastasized throughout Washington DC. It was there before Obama arrived but he brought a whole new and virulent strain with him. Every time there is a shameful incident or embarrassing event perpetrated by "a few bad apples" we hear from the DC psychopaths that "That is not who we are". They are incorrect. It is who they are in DC. It is not who we the real everyday thinking feeling Americans are. I certainly am not one of the people to be included in their cumulative we." — Alexander Cockburn, <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/01/theres-a-cancer-on-the-presidency-called-barack-obama/">writing for his online publication Counterpunch</a>. Alexander is also a columnist at <i>The Nation</i>, though I have a hard time believing this missive will make it passed Katrina Vanden Heuvel. Alex is a firebrand. I've written for him once or twice, and he was kind enough to <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/great-intelligence-fraud">comment on my reporting</a> about <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/15/colin-powell-and-the-great-quot-intelligence-fraud-quot/">the Iraq War </a>for <i>The Boston Globe</i> in 2003 in his <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/168138/obama-lights-war-pot">Beat the Devil</a> column. This sounds like Alex being Alex, alright. Gotta love his fire.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br style="font-family: times new roman,serif;" /><span style="font-family: times new roman,serif;"><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/06/02/obama-gets-left-behind/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/06/02/obama-gets-left-behind/</a></span></span> Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-79851683751719885822012-06-03T11:40:00.001-04:002014-03-14T19:46:19.505-04:00Dreaming of a Superhero - NYTimes.com<div itemprop="articleBody" style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> ON Friday night, the nation’s capital was under a tornado watch. And that was the best thing that happened to the White House all week. </span></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="font-family: inherit;">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">As the president was being slapped by Mitt Romney for being too weak on national security, he was being rapped by a Times editorial for being too aggressive on national security. </span></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="font-family: inherit;">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">A Times article by Jo Becker and Scott Shane revealed that the liberal law professor who campaigned against torture and the Iraq war now personally makes the final decisions on the “kill list,” targets for drone strikes. “A unilateral campaign of death is untenable,” the editorial asserted. </span></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="font-family: inherit;">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: small;">On Thursday, Bill Clinton once more telegraphed that he considers Obama a lightweight who should not have bested his wife. Bluntly contradicting the Obama campaign theme that Romney is a heartless corporate raider, Clinton told CNN that the Republican’s record at Bain was “sterling.” </span></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> Covering a humorous W. at the unveiling of his portrait, the White House press actually seemed nostalgic for the president who bollixed up Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina and the economy — a sure sign that the Obama magic is flagging. </span></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="font-family: inherit;">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">On Friday, an ugly job market report led to the stock market’s worst day of the year. As the recovery flat-lined, the president conceded to a crowd at a Honeywell factory in Golden Valley, Minn., that “our economy is still facing some serious headwinds” and getting sucked further into Europe’s sinkhole. In depressing imagery for the start of the summer campaign, cable channels carried the red Dow arrow pointing down while Obama spoke; the Dow wiped out all of its 2012 gains. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/dowd-dreaming-of-a-superhero.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=opinion">Dreaming of a Superhero - NYTimes.com</a></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-40386250909199461052012-06-03T09:56:00.000-04:002012-06-03T09:57:01.974-04:00Google Reader (1000+)<p style="font-family:times new roman,serif"><font size="4">It's become fashionable in the last few years to denounce "crony capitalism"—the sort of mutual backscratching that often takes place between government and business. "You give me political support, I'll give you a bailout."</font></p> <p style="font-family:times new roman,serif"><font size="4">It's wrong to call that "crony capitalism." There's nothing capitalist about it. <a target="_blank" href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html">Capitalism</a> means the separation of state and economics. Under capitalism, the government has no special favors or protections to hand out, and so business has no reason to grovel.</font></p> <p style="font-family:times new roman,serif"><font size="4">But setting that aside, it's true that cronyism is rampant today, as it is in any <a target="_blank" href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/mixed_economy.html">mixed economy</a>. The blame, however, rests not with business but with government. Because the fact of the matter is, if you want to survive in business today, you had better have friends in Washington.</font></p> <p style="font-family:times new roman,serif"><font size="4">Just look at what's happening to Apple. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/a-bite-apple-article-1.1084829?localLinksEnabled=false">According to David Boaz</a>:</font></p> <blockquote style="font-family:times new roman,serif"><p><font size="4">Yes, Apple—praised to the skies for being an innovator and job creator by Washington politicians when that narrative serves their interests—has become the latest target of the political class.</font></p> <p><font size="4">According to Politico, the daily newspaper of lobbyists and political consultants, industry giant Apple spent a mere $500,000 in Washington in the first quarter of 2012, compared to more than $7 million Google and Microsoft spent on lobbying and related activities from January through March of this year.</font></p> <p><font size="4">Then Politico lowers the boom: "The company's attitude toward D.C.—described by critics as 'don't bother us'—has left it without many inside-the-Beltway friends."</font></p> <p><font size="4">"Don't bother us"? I say, amen. But Washington says, no way. The attitude on the Potomac is: "Nice little company ya got there, shame if anything happened to it."</font></p></blockquote> <p style="font-family:times new roman,serif"><font size="4">Now, do you think Apple is going to spend more money on lobbying in the future or less?</font></p><font size="4"><br style="font-family:times new roman,serif"><span style="font-family:times new roman,serif"><a href="http://www.google.com/reader/view/?hl=en&tab=my#stream/feed%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fcapitalism.aynrand.org%2Ffeed%2F">http://www.google.com/reader/view/?hl=en&tab=my#stream/feed%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fcapitalism.aynrand.org%2Ffeed%2F</a></span></font> Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-14183157991094811102012-06-03T09:53:00.001-04:002012-06-03T09:53:33.098-04:00Yaron Answers: Hasn’t Capitalism Produced Greater Inequality In Recent Years? — Laissez Faire<h2>Yaron Answers: Hasn’t Capitalism Produced Greater Inequality In Recent Years?</h2><a href="http://capitalism.aynrand.org/yaron-answers-hasnt-capitalism-produced-greater-inequality-in-recent-years/#utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+aynrand%2FtSIG+%28LaissezFaire%29&utm_content=Google+Reader">Yaron Answers: Hasn’t Capitalism Produced Greater Inequality In Recent Years? — Laissez Faire</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-88637964722418925392012-06-03T09:11:00.001-04:002012-06-03T09:11:26.219-04:00Still Not Theft: More On Fractional Reserve Banking — Laissez Faire <p><font size="4">There's been a good—and surprisingly passionate—discussion of <a href="http://capitalism.aynrand.org/yaron-answers-should-fractional-reserve-banking-be-legal/">fractional reserve banking</a> in the comments of Yaron's recent video. A lot of the comments are worth reading, but definitely don't miss this one from Ayn Rand Institute board member <a href="http://www.hblist.com/">Harry Binswanger</a>:</font></p> <blockquote><p><font size="4">Anonymous apparently neither listened to Yaron nor read any of these comments. What kind of "counterfeiter" tells his trading partners just what his money is and represents?</font></p> <p><font size="4">Listen up anti-FRBers: what if every bank made each depositor, on opening his account, sign a waiver saying he realizes the arrangement and consents to taking the risk? And then what if every check printed by such banks carried notice: "This check is on an account in a fractional reserve bank; in accepting it in payment, you assume the risks involved." Or whatever language you want—flashing neon signs above the banks maybe? WHAT THEN? Where's your fraud, your counterfeiting, your double claims on the same asset?</font></p> <p><font size="4">So what are the anti-FRBers left with, given that this completely ends their claims of fraud? They are left with their ANTI-CAPITALIST economics: the claim that they know better than the market—that they can see that fractional reserve banking is dangerous but those in the market—bankers and their clients—cannot. If they actually accept capitalism, and if they grant there's no force or fraud, they must take the position: let the market sort it out.</font></p> <p><font size="4">Fractional Reserve banking existed and functioned here in the free banking periods of the 19th century. End of story.</font></p> <p><font size="4">Excuse my shortness of temper, but I have been answering the same benighted anti-FRB arguments for some 40 years now.</font></p></blockquote> <p><font size="4">Meanwhile, for anyone interested in the economics of fractional reserve banking, I can't recommend strongly enough that you check out the work of Lawrence H. White and George Selgin. Selgin in particular has a number of fascinating blog posts on this issue:</font></p> <ul><li><font size="4"><a href="http://www.freebanking.org/2011/05/31/the-state-and-100-percent-reserve-banking/" rel="bookmark">The State and 100 Percent Reserve Banking</a></font></li><li><font size="4"><a href="http://www.freebanking.org/2011/06/08/those-%e2%80%9cother%e2%80%9d-100-percent-reserve-banking-advocates/" rel="bookmark">Those "Other" 100 Percent Reserve Banking Advocates</a></font></li> <li><font size="4"><a href="http://www.freebanking.org/2011/09/02/is-fractional-reserve-banking-inflationary/" rel="bookmark">Is Fractional-Reserve Banking Inflationary?</a></font></li><li><font size="4"><a href="http://www.freebanking.org/2011/08/02/free-banking-and-economic-development-part-1/" rel="bookmark">Free Banking and Economic Development, Part 1</a></font></li> <li><font size="4"><a href="http://www.freebanking.org/2011/08/09/fractional-reserves-and-economic-development-part-2/" rel="bookmark">Free Banking and Economic Development, Part 2</a></font></li></ul> <font style="font-family:times new roman,serif" size="4"><br><a href="http://capitalism.aynrand.org/still-not-theft-more-on-fractional-reserve-banking/#utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+aynrand%2FtSIG+%28LaissezFaire%29&utm_content=Google+Reader">http://capitalism.aynrand.org/still-not-theft-more-on-fractional-reserve-banking/#utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+aynrand%2FtSIG+%28LaissezFaire%29&utm_content=Google+Reader</a></font> Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-649992255713399512011-10-29T01:18:00.001-04:002011-10-29T01:18:54.365-04:00Asian Americans most bullied in US schools: study<span style="font-family: times new roman;font-size:130%;" class="lingo_region" ></span><blockquote style="font-family: times new roman;"><span class="lingo_region" style="font-size:130%;">Asian Americans endure far more bullying at US schools than members of other ethnic groups, with teenagers of the community three times as likely to face taunts on the Internet, new data shows. <p> Policymakers see a range of reasons for the harassment, including <a style="cursor: pointer; display: inline; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal;" class=" lingo_link lingo_link_hidden" href="http://topics.breitbart.com/language+barriers/" rel="nofollow">language barriers</a> faced by some Asian American students and a spike in racial abuse following the September 11, 2001 attacks against children perceived as Muslim. </p><p> "This data is absolutely unacceptable and it must change. Our children have to be able to go to school free of fear," <a style="cursor: pointer; display: inline; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal;" class=" lingo_link lingo_link_hidden" href="http://topics.breitbart.com/US+Education+Secretary+Arne+Duncan/" rel="nofollow">US Education Secretary Arne Duncan</a> said Friday during a forum at the Center for American Progress think-tank. </p><p> The research, to be released on Saturday, found that 54 percent of Asian American teenagers said they were bullied in the classroom, sharply above the 31.3 percent of whites who reported being picked on. </p><p> The figure was 38.4 percent for African Americans and 34.3 percent for Hispanics, a government researcher involved in the <a style="text-decoration: underline; color: black; cursor: pointer; display: inline; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal;" class=" lingo_link" href="http://topics.breitbart.com/data+analysis/" rel="nofollow">data analysis</a> told <a style="cursor: pointer; display: inline; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal;" class=" lingo_link lingo_link_hidden" href="http://topics.breitbart.com/AFP/" rel="nofollow">AFP.</a> He requested anonymity because the data has not been made public. </p><p> The disparity was even more striking for cyber-bullying. </p><p> Some 62 percent of Asian Americans reported online harassment once or twice a month, compared with 18.1 percent of whites. The researcher said more study was needed on why the problem is so severe among Asian Americans. </p><p> The data comes from a 2009 survey supported by the <a style="cursor: pointer; display: inline; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal;" class=" lingo_link lingo_link_hidden" href="http://topics.breitbart.com/US+Justice+Department+and+Education+Department/" rel="nofollow">US Justice Department and Education Department</a> which interviewed some 6,500 students from ages 12 to 18. Asian Americans are generally defined as tracing ancestry to <a style="cursor: pointer; display: inline; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal;" class=" lingo_link lingo_link_hidden" href="http://topics.breitbart.com/East+Asia/" rel="nofollow">East Asia,</a> the <a style="cursor: pointer; display: inline; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal;" class=" lingo_link lingo_link_hidden" href="http://topics.breitbart.com/Indian+subcontinent/" rel="nofollow">Indian subcontinent</a> or the <a style="cursor: pointer; display: inline; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal;" class=" lingo_link lingo_link_hidden" href="http://topics.breitbart.com/South+Pacific/" rel="nofollow">South Pacific.</a> </p></span></blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><br /><a style="font-family: times new roman;" href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.1732b21b28ee34447047f9aa12dd08c5.b31&show_article=1">Asian Americans most bullied in US schools: study</a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-12483187526585879862011-10-18T02:26:00.001-04:002011-10-18T02:27:18.610-04:00Ron Paul’s Economic Plan: Cut 5 Cabinet Agencies, Cut Taxes, Cut President’s Pay - Washington Wire - WSJ<p></p><blockquote style="font-family: times new roman;"><p><span style="font-size:130%;">Mr. Paul’s “Restore America” plan calls for a drastically reduced federal government to help spur American <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/10/17/ron-pauls-economic-plan-cut-5-cabinet-agencies-cut-taxes-cut-presidents-pay/?mod=google_news_blog#" style="color: green; text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;" id="_GPLITA_1">business</a> — a familiar theme for the Texas Republican and many of the GOP White House hopefuls. But unlike some of his Republican rivals who have released economic plans, the libertarian congressman mostly avoids the weeds of tax and trade policy, according to excerpts.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">But Mr. Paul does get specific when he calls for a 10% reduction in the federal work force, while pledging to limit his presidential salary to $39,336, which his campaign says is “approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.” The current pay rate for commander in chief is $400,000 a year.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">The Paul plan would also lower the corporate tax rate to 15% from 35%, though it is silent on personal income tax rates, which Mr. Paul would like to abolish. The congressman would end taxes on personal savings and extend “all Bush tax cuts.”</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">He would also allow U.S. firms to repatriate capital without additional taxes. Some lawmakers have recently proposed such legislation as a way to spur job growth. Its critics argue that a tax holiday for companies with money abroad has not historically led to domestic investment.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">But the plan, at its heart, is libertarian. While promising to cut $1 trillion in spending during his first year, Mr. Paul would eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior and Housing and Urban Development. When former Massachusetts Gov. <strong>MItt Romney</strong> <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904900904576554952190314430.html">unveiled his economic plan last month</a>, he said he would submit legislation to reduce nonsecurity, discretionary spending by $20 billion.</span></p><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><br /><a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/10/17/ron-pauls-economic-plan-cut-5-cabinet-agencies-cut-taxes-cut-presidents-pay/?mod=google_news_blog">Ron Paul’s Economic Plan: Cut 5 Cabinet Agencies, Cut Taxes, Cut President’s Pay - Washington Wire - WSJ</a></span></blockquote><a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/10/17/ron-pauls-economic-plan-cut-5-cabinet-agencies-cut-taxes-cut-presidents-pay/?mod=google_news_blog"></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-76785000484286878962011-10-14T21:42:00.001-04:002011-10-14T21:43:24.384-04:00News from The Associated Press<span class="entry-content"><p class="ap-story-p"> </p></span><blockquote style="font-family: times new roman;"><span class="entry-content" style="font-size:130%;"><p class="ap-story-p">WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration Friday pulled the plug on a major program in the president's signature health overhaul law - a long-term <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LONG_TERM_CARE_PROGRAM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-14-15-24-47#" style="color: green; text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;" id="_GPLITA_1">care insurance</a> plan dogged from the beginning by doubts over its financial solvency.</p> <p class="ap-story-p">Targeted by congressional Republicans for repeal, the program became the first casualty in the political and policy wars over the <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LONG_TERM_CARE_PROGRAM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-14-15-24-47#" style="color: green; text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;" id="_GPLITA_4">health care law</a>. It had been expected to launch in 2013.</p> <p class="ap-story-p">"This is a victory for the American taxpayer and future generations," said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., spearheading opposition in the Senate. "The administration is finally admitting (the long-term care plan) is unsustainable and cannot be implemented."</p></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><br /><a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LONG_TERM_CARE_PROGRAM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-14-15-24-47">News from The Associated Press</a></span></blockquote><a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LONG_TERM_CARE_PROGRAM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-14-15-24-47"></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-27869827400752250502011-10-11T13:51:00.002-04:002011-10-11T13:53:10.027-04:00Tea Party Invades Occupy D.C. to Defend Capitalism | Video | TheBlaze.com<p></p><blockquote style="font-family: times new roman;"><p><span style="font-size:130%;">What happens when the Tea Party invades the seemingly never-ending “Occupy” protest movement? Until now, this question has been left to the whims of the imagination. But over the weekend, Accuracy in Media, Let Freedom Ring and Young America’s Foundation joined forces to infiltrate ”Occupy D.C.”</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">As you can imagine, the results are quite hilarious, as the Tea Party counter-protesters state their love for capitalism, holding signs that read, “Taxed Enough Already” and “Unions Destroy Jobs,” among others. The patriotic young men, who are predictably met with anger, hand out Constitutions to the “Occupiers,” while defending capitalism (Meredith Jessup covered this <a target="_blank" href="http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2011/10/11/video-tea-party-invades-occupy-dc-rally/">on the blog</a> as well).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">In the video, you’ll hear an Occupy D.C. protester call one of the Tea Partiers an “idiot.“ Another man calls one of the supporters of capitalism a ”candy a**.” And yet another individual who is visibly agitated says, “I‘m gonna turn away because I don’t turn the other cheek. You push me and you’re gonna have a problem.”</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">Some of the other responses, though, are even more bizarre: “Our troops are the terrorists” and “You and your corporate cronies…get the f**k out of my country” are two odd statements to look out for.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">Accuracy in Media described the mission as follows: “To see what happens when three peaceful fans of capitalism, guns and our military take to the streets.”</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">Watch the insanity unfold, below (caution: language):</span></p><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><br /><a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/tea-partiers-invade-occupy-d-c-protest-and-this-is-the-video/">Tea Party Invades Occupy D.C. to Defend Capitalism | Video | TheBlaze.com</a></span></blockquote><a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/tea-partiers-invade-occupy-d-c-protest-and-this-is-the-video/"></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-88599331094164949882011-10-10T22:38:00.001-04:002011-10-10T22:40:18.289-04:00The American Spectator : Andrew Jackson: Tea Party President<p style="font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;">But, if Roosevelt is no proper model, who among past presidents should Republicans turn to for lessons and guidance? Who is the Tea Party progenitor? Who offers the insight, outlook, and rhetoric for today's GOP?</span></p> <p style="font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;">The answer is Andrew Jackson, who would have slapped down the notion of American greatness conservatism with utter contempt because he believed the country's greatness emanated from its people, not its government. Jackson was the great conservative populist of American history, and his story bears study at a time when the country seems receptive to a well-crafted brand of conservative populism.</span></p> <p style="font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Indeed, conservative populism is the essence of the Tea Party -- opposed to big, intrusive government; angry about the corporate bailouts of the late Bush and early <a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/07/andrew-jackson-tea-party-presi#" style="color:green;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:3px double" id="_GPLITA_3">Obama</a> administrations; fearful of the consequences of fiscal incontinence; suspicious of governmental favoritism; wary of excessive global ambition.</span></p> <p style="font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;">These concerns and fears were Jackson's concerns and fears 180 years ago when he became president, and his greatest legacy is his constant warning that governmental encroachments would lead to precisely the kinds of problems that are today besieging the country -- and roiling the Tea Party. That legacy deserves attention.</span></p><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><br /><a style="font-family: times new roman;" href="http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/07/andrew-jackson-tea-party-presi">The American Spectator : Andrew Jackson: Tea Party President</a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-85931011406380933032011-10-10T02:34:00.002-04:002011-10-10T02:36:54.177-04:00George Reisman's Blog on Economics, Politics, Society, and Culture: WHERE PROFIT COMES FROM<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "></span></div><blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">This theory of profit/interest has major implications for the understanding of capital accumulation, the determination of real wages and the general standard of living, taxation, inflation/deflation, and the business cycle. It also provides the basis for the overthrow of virtually all aspects of Keynesianism and its system of national income accounting, along with an equally fundamental and thorough refutation of Marxism and the exploitation theory.<br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><a href="http://georgereismansblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/where-profit-comes-from.html"><span class="Apple-style-span">George Reisman's Blog on Economics, Politics, Society, and Culture: WHERE PROFIT COMES FROM</span></a></blockquote><a href="http://georgereismansblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/where-profit-comes-from.html"></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-76390679239367361152011-10-03T14:34:00.001-04:002011-10-03T14:36:13.093-04:00BET's Robert Johnson To Obama: Stop Attacking The Wealthy | RealClearPolitics<blockquote style="font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;">BET founder Robert Johnson on the "FOX News Sunday" program: "Well, I think the president has to recalibrate his message. You don't get people to like you by attacking them or demeaning their success. You know, I grew up in a family of 10 kids, first one to go to college, and I've earned my success. I've earned my right to fly private if I choose to do so.<br /><br />"And by attacking me it is not going to convince me that I should take a bigger hit because I happen to be wealthy. You know, it is the old -- I think Ted and Fred and I we both sort of take the old Ethel Merman approach to life. I've tried poor and I tried rich and I like rich better. It doesn't mean that I am a bad guy.<br /><br />"I didn't go in to business to create a public policy success for either party, Republican or Democrat. I went in business to create jobs and opportunity, create opportunity, create value for myself and my investors. And that's what the president should be praising, not demagoguing us simply because Warren Buffet says he pays more than his secretary. He should pay the secretary more and she will pay more."</span></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/02/bets_robert_johnson_to_obama_stop_attacking_the_wealthy.html">BET's Robert Johnson To Obama: Stop Attacking The Wealthy | RealClearPolitics</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-37531587525227251602011-09-29T14:15:00.001-04:002011-09-29T14:16:44.068-04:00The American Spectator : The Obama Code<p><em><span></span></em></p><blockquote style="font-family: times new roman;"><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><span>"When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were instinctively, to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink."</span></em> </span><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>--</strong> <strong><span>George Orwell, "Politics and the English language"</span></strong></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">Last weekend, President Obama gave a speech to the Congressional Black Caucus. It would have passed largely unnoticed into the giant, gaseous cloud of accumulated Obama speeches that hangs somewhere above Washington had it not been for an Associated Press reporter dutifully doing his job.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">Reporter Mark Smith quoted the President this way:</span></p> <blockquote> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">"Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes," he said, his voice rising as applause and cheers mounted. "Shake it off. Stop complainin'. Stop grumblin'. Stop cryin'. We are going to press on. We have work to do.</span><span style="font-size:130%;">"</span></p> </blockquote> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">Though that is precisely what the president said, it differed from the official White House transcript, which included the three missing g's. Smith, sensing something important not in the president's words, but in the way he delivered them, thought it important not to change them. For that simple application of journalistic integrity, he was called a racist.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">On Chris Hayes' MSNBC show, author and, unbelievably, professor of journalism Karen Hunter said the AP story was "inherently racist." She explained, </span><span style="font-size:130%;">"I teach a journalism class, and I tell my students to fix people's grammar, because you don't want them to sound ignorant. For them to do that, it's code, and I don't like it.</span><span style="font-size:130%;">"</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">At this point it might be worth noting that in 2009 Hunter said, also on MSNBC, that people who show disrespect to the president are racist. For a professor, she certainly has issues with logic. Hunter, it would seem, is an expert at silencing dissent by alleging racism.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">Why, though, would accurately quoting the president be racist? Because, Hunter believes, not cleaning up the president's grammar makes him "sound ignorant." Yet did the president himself not utter the words that way -- on purpose?</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">Anyone who has watched Obama speeches -- which would be anyone who has flipped on an American television set at any random time in the past three years -- knows that Obama does not always drop his g's. He made a conscious decision to do so when speaking before the Congressional Black Caucus. Whatever for?</span></p><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/29/the-obama-code">The American Spectator : The Obama Code</a></span></blockquote><a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/29/the-obama-code"></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-6415726126626427732011-09-23T14:48:00.001-04:002011-09-23T14:49:07.336-04:00The American Spectator : His Biggest Big Lies<p style="font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;">If you work hard, play by the rules, save your money, create jobs, and make a success out of yourself, President Obama and the Democrat party will plunder everything you have worked so hard for, because in their view that is only fair.</span></p> <p style="font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;">That is the meaning of the policies President Obama is espousing as he campaigns for re-election around the country this week. As Mark Steyn has explained, there is no bill yet that the President is demanding Congress pass, it won't create any jobs, and there is no money to pay for it. It is just a traveling road show, and we need to start to hold accountable our relatives, friends and neighbors who would fall for it, and thereby darkly threaten the entire future of America.</span></p><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><a style="font-family: times new roman;" href="http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/21/his-biggest-big-lies">The American Spectator : His Biggest Big Lies</a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-7992712949376365912011-09-15T11:06:00.002-04:002011-09-15T11:08:18.443-04:00Obama’s Solar Scandal - Michael Barone - National Review Online<p style="font-family:times new roman;"> <span class="drop" style="font-size:100%;"></span></p><blockquote style="font-family:times new roman;"><p><span class="drop" style="font-size:130%;">O</span><span style="font-size:130%;">ne factor favoring President Obama’s reelection, according to a recent article by political scientist Alan Lichtman, is the absence of scandal in his administration.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;"> Lichtman may have spoken too soon.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;"> The reason can be encapsulated in a single word: Solyndra.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;"> That’s the name of a company that manufactured solar panels in Fremont, Calif. (which voted 71 percent for Obama in 2008). It was the first company to receive a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy as part of the 2009 stimulus package. This wasn’t small potatoes. The loan guarantee was for $535 million.</span></p> <p> </p> <div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;"><p align="center"> </p></div><span style="font-size:130%;"> It was, Vice President Biden said, “exactly what the Recovery Act was all about.” Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winner, said it would help “spark a new revolution that will put Americans to work.” It was part of the Obama administration’s program to create so-called green jobs, which we were told were the key to future economic growth.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277271/obama-s-solar-scandal-michael-barone">Obama’s Solar Scandal - Michael Barone - National Review Online</a></span></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-83331127502606003222011-09-15T10:58:00.001-04:002011-09-15T11:00:30.725-04:00Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming | Fox News<p style="font-size: 14px; font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."</span></p> <p style="font-size: 14px; font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;">The <a href="http://aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm" target="_blank">official position of the American Physical Society</a> (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.</span></p> <p style="font-size: 14px; font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming">reprinted at Climate Depot</a>, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.</span></p> <p style="font-size: 14px; font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;">"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.</span></p> <p style="font-size: 14px; font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."</span></p> <p style="font-size: 14px; font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;">"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society. </span></p> <p style="font-size: 14px; font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;">"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.</span></p> <p style="font-size: 14px; font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;">A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.</span></p> <p style="font-size: 14px; font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;">The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.</span></p> <p style="font-size: 14px; font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;">"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."</span></p> <p style="font-size: 14px; font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signer of a 2009 letter to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/obama-administration/barack-obama.htm#r_src=ramp" class="r_lapi">President Obama</a> critical of his position on climate change.</span></p><div style="overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; border: medium none; font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br />Read more: <a style="color: #003399;" href="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/#ixzz1Y24HK0Og">http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/#ixzz1Y24HK0Og</a><br /></span></div><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><br /><a style="font-family: times new roman;" href="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/?test=latestnews">Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming | Fox News</a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-45764956173415995762011-09-10T12:07:00.003-04:002011-09-10T12:09:24.108-04:00The American Spectator : Letter to a Liberal Friend<blockquote style="font-family: times new roman;"><h2><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/08/letter-to-a-liberal-friend">Letter to a Liberal Friend</a></span></h2> <p class="byline"><span style="font-size:130%;">By <a href="http://spectator.org/people/green-lantern" rel="author">Green Lantern</a> on 9.8.11 @ 6:09AM</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">I went to one of those prestigious Eastern colleges that turn out the bureaucrats who populate President Obama's administration so I have an unusual perspective on his supporters. I know these people very well, yet I can't figure out their motivation.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">As class secretary, I spend quite a bit of time gathering news for the Alumni Notes. When I call to chat, nearly all my former classmates are staunchly liberal, enraged at the Tea Party and alarmed at the possibility that President Obama may not be re-elected. This is kind of strange. Forty years ago, many of these people were football jocks or party animals who had very little concern for politics. Yet they have someone "matured" into staunch liberals. All this was summed up by one alumnus who wrote in the class notes a few years ago, "I continue to prosper while moving rapidly toward the angry left."</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">One of the classmates I contacted this year is a Washington tort lawyer. He told me how he recently represented an entrepreneur who got a permit from the Department of Interior to develop a coal mine in Tennessee, spent $3 million developing infrastructure, and was then told by the bureaucrats that they had changed their mind -- the mine was too close to a national forest.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">"I won a $300 million settlement before a federal administrative judge, working on contingency," he said. "But when it went up to the appeals level, the three-judge panel threw it out. They said the government can do anything it wants. It makes me sick."</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">"Isn't that the sort of thing the Tea Party is complaining about?" I asked.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">"Tea Party!" He was astounded. "You're not one of those Tea Party people, are you? They're all crazy."</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">Another class member is now a prominent professor at the University of Wisconsin. I asked him what it was like in Madison during last summer's demonstrations and he said, "Heck, I was in them. We've got an absolutely insane governor in this state, Governor Walker. The man is crazy. He wants to gut the entire system. We were out there to stop him."</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">In the next breath was telling me about his second home in the Caribbean. "We have a little compound down there," he said. "We got hit by a hurricane ten years ago and I had to go down to rebuild the place. There are only about 100 people on the island so we all helped each other out."</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">Somehow the incongruity of an affluent college professor with a hideaway home in the Caribbean who is also a member of the oppressed working masses who must demonstrate against an insane governor who is foolish enough to be upset because his state is going bankrupt did not register in his head.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">I've had several conversations with liberals lately and they have one simple explanation for the President's current troubles -- "racism." "What's really going on is these Tea Party people can't stand the idea of being ruled by a black man, don't you think that's it?" Nine percent unemployment, 20 million people out of work, a 27-year-high in unemployment among African-Americans -- if George Bush were President, he would be being charged with racism.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">So I've composed a letter to my liberal friends who are beginning to realize that Obama may be a one-term President. We've seen this before -- Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush both tripped over the economy and failed to get re-elected. Nobody argued it was because Carter was a Southern Baptist or Bush was Skull-and-Bones. So why should it be hard to fathom that 43rd President might face the same experience?<br /></span></p><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><br /><a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/08/letter-to-a-liberal-friend">The American Spectator : Letter to a Liberal Friend</a></span></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-75038425620405572002011-09-10T11:52:00.001-04:002011-09-10T11:53:16.297-04:00Articles: The Continuing Disgrace of U.S. Education<span class="home_blog_date"></span><blockquote><span class="home_blog_date">September 10, 2011</span> <h1>The Continuing Disgrace of U.S. Education</h1> <strong>By</strong> <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/gary_jason/"><strong>Gary Jason</strong></a><br /> <p><span style="font-size:medium;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times;">If Americans dared to hope that their K-12 educational system might be improving, several new articles will bring the poor souls back to reality.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:medium;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times;">The first is a <a href="http://educationnext.org/with-a-math-proficiency-rate-of-32-percent-u-s-ranks-number-32/">piece</a> by Paul Peterson of the Harvard Program on Educational Policy and Governance. Peterson notes that on the most recent national test results, only a risible 32% of American 8<sup>th</sup>-graders scored "proficient" in math. By coincidence, on the international PISA tests, taken by students from 65 countries and administered by the OECD, our students' scores are at 32<sup>nd</sup> place.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:medium;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times;">How do the other developed nations stack up? In six countries (Canada, Finland, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and Switzerland), at least 50% of the 8<sup>th</sup>-graders score proficient in math. Many other nations which don't score that high still outscore us, including Germany (45%), Australia (44%), and France (39%).</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:medium;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times;">Most worrisome is the fact that 75% of Shanghai students scored proficient in math. As we compete with China for high-tech industry, the ability of its educational system to teach Chinese kids math will give the country an ever-increasing competitive edge, unless ours closes the gap.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:medium;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times;">Within our country, there are wide discrepancies in math proficiency. Massachusetts has the high average of 51%, with only five other states scoring above 40%. (These are Kansas, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, and Vermont).</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:medium;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times;">Depressingly, some of the richest states score lowest in math proficiency, with New York at 30%, Michigan at 29%, Florida at 27%, and my home state of California at a pathetic 24%.</span></span></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/the_continuing_disgrace_of_us_education.html">Articles: The Continuing Disgrace of U.S. Education</a></blockquote><a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/the_continuing_disgrace_of_us_education.html"></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-56747991613040222052011-09-10T11:48:00.001-04:002011-09-10T11:54:04.416-04:00Blog: PBS alters transcript to hide Obama gaffe<h1></h1><blockquote><h1>PBS alters transcript to hide Obama gaffe</h1> <span class="home_author">Timothy Birdnow</span><br /> <p><span style="font-family:times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size:medium;">Barack Obama has gone to Congress asking for more money to spend. The President, in a rambling and tedious exercise mixing blame with demands, made quite a few dubious statements in laying out the case for Congress to vote for the plan which as yet does not exist. Much like Obamacare, Congress must ultimately vote for the bill to know what is in it.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size:medium;">At one point Mr. Obama made a major gaffe; he identified Abraham Lincoln as the founder of the Republican Party.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size:medium;">Lincoln did not join the Republicans until 1856, over two years after the party was founded. The first Republican convention was held in Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size:medium;">Such a gaffe would have brought huge amounts of ridicule and derision on George W. Bush, but in the case of Obama the media yawned.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size:medium;">Actually, they did more than yawn; government-funded PBS has altered the transcript of the President's speech, removing the offending comment.</span></span></p></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/pbs_alters_transcript_to_hide_obama_gaffe.html">Blog: PBS alters transcript to hide Obama gaffe</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583355899739522283.post-48985575693193260672011-08-29T19:09:00.001-04:002011-08-29T19:10:58.399-04:00The American Spectator : Lew's Lewd Letter<blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><p style="font-family: times new roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:130%;">"Obama Takes Charge at Hurricane Command Center" blared the AFP headline on Saturday. But it was just another disappointment for Obama. By the time the over-hyped hurricane Irene blew into town, there wasn't anything for Obama to take charge of.</span></p><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,serif;"> </span></span><p style="font-family: times new roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span>It could have been a big psychological moment for Obama's campaign but it was just another let down for the man. The stock markets seemed to respond better to the East Coast earthquake last week than to Barry's recent speeches.</span></span></p><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,serif;"> </span></span><p style="font-family: times new roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span>But Barry O'bama really has the luck of the Irish. With every sentient American worried about our still-sinking economy, we've been diverted from thinking about it all summer.</span></span></p><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,serif;"> </span></span><p style="font-family: times new roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span>Gaddafi's fall, Irene's sweep of the not-so-earthquake-shattered East Coast, and now Dick Cheney's memoir have taken turns dominating the news. Maureen Dowd's <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/opinion/sunday/dowd-darth-vader-vents.html?_r=1"> review</a> of Cheney's book seemed to say that last week's earthquake and the Irene minicane were the result of Voldemort-Cheney casting another evil spell on Washington, D.C.</span></span></p><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,serif;"> </span></span><p style="font-family: times new roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span>Meanwhile Obama vacationed at Martha's Vineyard, contemplating how he would announce his new plan to revive the economy and restore confidence in the financial markets. The liberal media has been bewailing the fact that Obama has no announced theme for his 2012 campaign. One sluggo even moaned that the campaign website had not a single slogan on it. But there soon will be slogans aplenty because the post-vacation Big Speech has been hyped almost as much as Irene. Obama has a lot riding on it.</span></span></p><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,serif;"> </span></span><p style="font-family: times new roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span>The problem he faces is that neither he nor anyone on his team can bring themselves to consider that reducing the size and scope of government is the only way to restore confidence in our economy among the financial markets, investors, and voters.</span></span></p></blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;"> <span style="font-family:times new roman,serif;"><a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/29/lews-lewd-letter">http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/29/lews-lewd-letter</a></span></span> Psychmstrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12425752142057152116noreply@blogger.com